Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

Vandeekree    

Rank #6536 on Comments
Vandeekree Avatar Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Offline
Send mail to Vandeekree Block Vandeekree Invite Vandeekree to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Date Signed Up:2/21/2010
Last Login:11/28/2014
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Comment Ranking:#6536
Highest Comment Rank:#1622
Comment Thumbs: 3945 total,  5774 ,  1829
Content Level Progress: 6.77% (4/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 88% (88/100)
Level 236 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz → Level 237 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Subscribers:2
Content Views:3
Total Comments Made:1690
FJ Points:3614

latest user's comments

#152 - To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's…  [+] (6 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#150 - Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child…  [+] (8 new replies) 04/18/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#148 - Well if your child is at risk then they're the ones who should…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/17/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #149 - Endofzeeworld (04/17/2014) [-]
Why should my child be punished because you refuse to vaccinate? I didn't put my child in the position they're in, but you put your child in the position they're in.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child could catch something from in that vulnerable state.
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#66 - Why do you care? Your child is vaccinated.  [+] (12 new replies) 04/17/2014 on stupid 0
User avatar #73 - Endofzeeworld (04/17/2014) [-]
Because if your child brings measles to school and my child is immuno-compromised, my child dies.
User avatar #148 - Vandeekree (04/17/2014) [-]
Well if your child is at risk then they're the ones who shouldn't be sent to school.
User avatar #149 - Endofzeeworld (04/17/2014) [-]
Why should my child be punished because you refuse to vaccinate? I didn't put my child in the position they're in, but you put your child in the position they're in.
User avatar #150 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Because unvaccinated children aren't the only place your child could catch something from in that vulnerable state.
User avatar #151 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Incorrect. As long as every other member of the school is vaccinated, my child is protected through herd immunity.
User avatar #152 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
To a degree. But it's no guarantee. The point being. Do what's best for your child. Don't bark at other parents for doing what they think is right no matter how much you disagree.
User avatar #153 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm fine with people raising their children to be homophobic radical right wing libro-anarchists, because it possess no direct threat to my own children. But if I have an immuno-comprimised child, not vaccinating does posses a direct threat my own children. That's why I get angry about this sort of thing.
User avatar #154 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Then do the best you can. But don't expect it from others.
User avatar #155 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Look at you being all peaceful.
Makes me feel like a right prick.
User avatar #156 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
I'm probably just being naive because I didn't really pick up on that you were being prickish.
User avatar #157 - Endofzeeworld (04/18/2014) [-]
Shoving my ideals on other people in my mind makes me kind of a prick.
User avatar #158 - Vandeekree (04/18/2014) [-]
Only if you do it in an impolite way. But if your worry for that person is genuine and your tone shows that, then I'd say it's a good thing.
#58 - You get used to it. So long as you don't panic, you don't have… 04/17/2014 on No Escape From That 0
#204 - But there is something stopping a religious person, and that i…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want 0
User avatar #356 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/16/2014) [-]
That's no different from the fear of consequences from any other source. It's not particular to Christians.

Where does it say that in the Bible? I don't recall a single verse that says that you need to repent in order to "truly" believe.

And where do you get those morals, the Bible? Something written by men, that has been improperly translated multiple times, and wasn't compiled until almost four hundred years after the birth of Christ? That doesn't sound like a very absolute source. Besides,"God dunnit" is not conducive to a rational discussion. If you're going to insist on "nuh uh, I'm right because god!" then this discussion will go nowhere.

No, morality is not conducive to religion or the "right" religion (I'm guessing that means your religion, correct?) since organized religion did not exist until about 6000 years ago, and morality existed long before that and in the absence of it. Claiming that people magically know these specific morals simply to bolster your own point is irrational. Now, if you wanted to claim that God made humans evolve with altruistic traits and a basic moral compass then you might have a point, but to say that they magically know them without ever having read them is ridiculous.

No, it doesn't mean that. Humanity needs a stable, cohesive society to function, which means that strangers can't be cruel to each other any more than brothers can or else that society falls apart. Basic morality is not unique to humans; almost all intelligent social animals exhibit it, including apes and dolphins. Cooperation is required for a stable society; even these corporations you rail on have a high degree of cooperation within themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality#Animal_sociality
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/embor.2010.19/full
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PccMuO2pcOcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=morality+in+dolphins&ots=6ezquG-enQ&sig=72TZ-eh0c5tTsOcQFU8spE6NzsU#v=onepage&q=morality%20in%20dolphins&f=false
#355 - nigeltheoutlaw has deleted their comment.
#160 - Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok … 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want 0
#114 - What do you mean if they have the urge they won't be stopped b…  [+] (2 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want -1
#127 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Absolute morality states that one rule holds true for any circumstances, and that just isn't true. If killing is bad, is it bad to kill in defense, is what I mean. If absolute morality can bend the rules like this in your opinion then I concede this.

Obviously if fear of God kept people from sinning then we would have no sinners, as the majority of people in the world are of Abrahamic religions, yet where are we today. I speak not of principle, but of actuality.

Morality is not a religious concept. Children have no problem doing what they want to get what they want, unless they are taught otherwise. Bats teach consequences with reward and punishment, chimpanzees understand morality fairly well enough. It depends on what you define morality as, but saying only religious people know what true morality is is just plain ignorant.

Atheists don't need a fear of consequences, just as you don't. Both have consequences for actions, one is only in the next as well as in this one.
User avatar #160 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok in self defense but it's not. Look at the turn the other cheeks verse. If someone wants your cloak give them your shirt too. You should have no reason for another person to give you a reason to defend yourself. In that same way, you should love everyone. Not love some more than others, love everyone equally. So if someone attacks someone else, you should love both of them enough to do all you can to save the one who is begin attacked but also try not to hurt and NEVER kill the one who is attacking. You can use words and actions but to kill the attacker is selfish on your part. There is no bending in absolute morality.

And yes, fear of God does prevent sin, but not everyone has fear of God. And not everyone who is religious has enough fear of God, myself included, I sin. It's a choice, but when people choose to follow it, it works.

I never said only religious people know. I said that all morality that exists comes from religion. Even that which people who aren't religious have. They mimic the morality of religions.

And yes, you and I do need fear of consequences in order to avoid doing something we want to do. If I offered you something you wanted and convinced you that there would be no consequences here or in the next life, you would take it. Fear of punishment is the only thing that stops people from doing wrong.

But for atheists, they don't see it as a guarantee. If you rob a bank you MIGHT get caught, or you might get rich. Either way, it's only wrong if you get caught. But for a Christian, God sees you no matter what.

#62 - But that's not what repenting is. Repenting is saying that you…  [+] (4 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want -1
#70 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Well then, if they had the urge, then they are not going to be stopped by some of their beliefs. They're going to sever ties if they really wanted to.

Also, absolute morality is just unworkable, as you would need to apply that to situations where it would not work. Either kinds are fairly poor if your general morality is poor, but relative makes more sense with good reasoning.

Morality is a learned concept, and not unique to humans, therefore not unique to religion.
User avatar #114 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
What do you mean if they have the urge they won't be stopped by their beliefs? That's the only thing stopping them. Fear of God. The only thing stopping an atheist is fear of punishment from others. That's the difference.

And absolute morality is the only thing that's workable. It means that there is a set wrong and right, where relative morality means two people can do the same thing, but depending on their beliefs, it can be wrong for one and right for the other. That makes no sense.
Please give me some of the examples you were talking about where absolute morality wouldn't work.

And yes, morality is a learned concept, but it is unique to humans. And it is unique to religion. You see, when God created this world, he set in place morality. Just because an atheist can understand morality, doesn't mean he isn't getting all his ideas of right and wrong from religion because there's simply no where else for them to come from.

No atheist can answer the question "Why is this wrong?" when pointing to an action. Because without God there is no reason something is right or wrong.
#127 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Absolute morality states that one rule holds true for any circumstances, and that just isn't true. If killing is bad, is it bad to kill in defense, is what I mean. If absolute morality can bend the rules like this in your opinion then I concede this.

Obviously if fear of God kept people from sinning then we would have no sinners, as the majority of people in the world are of Abrahamic religions, yet where are we today. I speak not of principle, but of actuality.

Morality is not a religious concept. Children have no problem doing what they want to get what they want, unless they are taught otherwise. Bats teach consequences with reward and punishment, chimpanzees understand morality fairly well enough. It depends on what you define morality as, but saying only religious people know what true morality is is just plain ignorant.

Atheists don't need a fear of consequences, just as you don't. Both have consequences for actions, one is only in the next as well as in this one.
User avatar #160 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok in self defense but it's not. Look at the turn the other cheeks verse. If someone wants your cloak give them your shirt too. You should have no reason for another person to give you a reason to defend yourself. In that same way, you should love everyone. Not love some more than others, love everyone equally. So if someone attacks someone else, you should love both of them enough to do all you can to save the one who is begin attacked but also try not to hurt and NEVER kill the one who is attacking. You can use words and actions but to kill the attacker is selfish on your part. There is no bending in absolute morality.

And yes, fear of God does prevent sin, but not everyone has fear of God. And not everyone who is religious has enough fear of God, myself included, I sin. It's a choice, but when people choose to follow it, it works.

I never said only religious people know. I said that all morality that exists comes from religion. Even that which people who aren't religious have. They mimic the morality of religions.

And yes, you and I do need fear of consequences in order to avoid doing something we want to do. If I offered you something you wanted and convinced you that there would be no consequences here or in the next life, you would take it. Fear of punishment is the only thing that stops people from doing wrong.

But for atheists, they don't see it as a guarantee. If you rob a bank you MIGHT get caught, or you might get rich. Either way, it's only wrong if you get caught. But for a Christian, God sees you no matter what.

#21 - I think the only real point you could draw from this is that y…  [+] (10 new replies) 04/16/2014 on I murder all I want 0
User avatar #170 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/16/2014) [-]
There's nothing to stop a religious person from raping either. If they were hit to the urge to rape, then they would.

You talk of repenting, but the only requirement for heaven is belief. Repenting is not necessary.

All morality is relative. Claiming an absolute simply because it agrees with your views is ludicrous and does much to tear down your credibility.

Morality is not unique to religion. It has existed long before religion, exists in the absence of religion, and exists in children too young to be influenced by religion.

deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/66763/10.1177_016502547800100403.pdf?sequence=2
psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=1981-32767-001
www.wjh.harvard.edu/~lds/pdfs/Warneken&Tomasello_2009b.pdf

Yes, I can. It is wrong because it is not in your best interest. All morality comes down to the fact that if you are free to rape, kill, and steal, then so is everyone else, and you aren't exempt from that. Human need stable societies to thrive, which is why we have evolved altruistic tendencies: those that have them succeed while those that don't are shunned and are not successful.
User avatar #204 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
But there is something stopping a religious person, and that is the fear of God, the fear of consequences. And unlike an atheist, those consequences can understood be be guaranteed.

And I agree about your comment on belief. But when you believe something then you act on that belief. If you believe that Russia is going to invade then you start stockpiling food stuffs. If you believe in God then you start repenting. So it is necessary or else you simply don't believe.

And no, morality, when it comes from an all knowing being. There is no way for a human to make a law that isn't relative simply because we have no way of seeing all possible practices and implications of that law. It takes all knowing and all seeing power to do such a thing, that is how God can give us absolute morality.

And morality is unique to religion. Specifically the right religion. Because it was created at the beginning just as religion was created at the beginning. And it does exist in the absence of the knowledge of the right religion, but that is still the same morality of that religion. It is written in our hearts and in the very structure that makes up how a human has to live given out physical bodies.

And if you are going to base morality in "my best interest" then that means it's right to hurt other if it is in your best interests. Just because you can do something doesn't make it right. And who's to say that you need cooperation for there to be a stable society. Selfishness doesn't require you to take all till it dries up, you can be like the corporations who take only as much as they can without breaking the back of their "cash cows." It's wrong but it creates a very stable society.
User avatar #356 - nigeltheoutlaw (04/16/2014) [-]
That's no different from the fear of consequences from any other source. It's not particular to Christians.

Where does it say that in the Bible? I don't recall a single verse that says that you need to repent in order to "truly" believe.

And where do you get those morals, the Bible? Something written by men, that has been improperly translated multiple times, and wasn't compiled until almost four hundred years after the birth of Christ? That doesn't sound like a very absolute source. Besides,"God dunnit" is not conducive to a rational discussion. If you're going to insist on "nuh uh, I'm right because god!" then this discussion will go nowhere.

No, morality is not conducive to religion or the "right" religion (I'm guessing that means your religion, correct?) since organized religion did not exist until about 6000 years ago, and morality existed long before that and in the absence of it. Claiming that people magically know these specific morals simply to bolster your own point is irrational. Now, if you wanted to claim that God made humans evolve with altruistic traits and a basic moral compass then you might have a point, but to say that they magically know them without ever having read them is ridiculous.

No, it doesn't mean that. Humanity needs a stable, cohesive society to function, which means that strangers can't be cruel to each other any more than brothers can or else that society falls apart. Basic morality is not unique to humans; almost all intelligent social animals exhibit it, including apes and dolphins. Cooperation is required for a stable society; even these corporations you rail on have a high degree of cooperation within themselves.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality#Animal_sociality
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1038/embor.2010.19/full
books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=PccMuO2pcOcC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=morality+in+dolphins&ots=6ezquG-enQ&sig=72TZ-eh0c5tTsOcQFU8spE6NzsU#v=onepage&q=morality%20in%20dolphins&f=false
#355 - nigeltheoutlaw has deleted their comment.
#27 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
There's nothing stopping a religious person from doing it either, when they can just do it and repent. Morals are not something exclusive to religion, and if they're the only thing stopping him from raping, then so be it if they're broken. But don't pretend that ones religion will automatically stop them any more than their character or sense.
User avatar #62 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
But that's not what repenting is. Repenting is saying that you are sorry for what you did AND that you will try not to do it again. But if you are knowingly using it as a "loophole" like that then you aren't actually repenting at all.

And while many argue morality isn't exclusive to religion, absolute morality is. Without some kind of religion you can only have relative morality, which I find hard to even see as true morality.

And yes, religion will automatically stop you from sinning. The only way to sin, while following religion, is to ignore what you know to be right and break from your religion in that moment. The reason common sense can't do it alone is because you can't be sure what is truly good in some situations. That's why people can see the same situation and disagree on what is the right thing to do.
#70 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Well then, if they had the urge, then they are not going to be stopped by some of their beliefs. They're going to sever ties if they really wanted to.

Also, absolute morality is just unworkable, as you would need to apply that to situations where it would not work. Either kinds are fairly poor if your general morality is poor, but relative makes more sense with good reasoning.

Morality is a learned concept, and not unique to humans, therefore not unique to religion.
User avatar #114 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
What do you mean if they have the urge they won't be stopped by their beliefs? That's the only thing stopping them. Fear of God. The only thing stopping an atheist is fear of punishment from others. That's the difference.

And absolute morality is the only thing that's workable. It means that there is a set wrong and right, where relative morality means two people can do the same thing, but depending on their beliefs, it can be wrong for one and right for the other. That makes no sense.
Please give me some of the examples you were talking about where absolute morality wouldn't work.

And yes, morality is a learned concept, but it is unique to humans. And it is unique to religion. You see, when God created this world, he set in place morality. Just because an atheist can understand morality, doesn't mean he isn't getting all his ideas of right and wrong from religion because there's simply no where else for them to come from.

No atheist can answer the question "Why is this wrong?" when pointing to an action. Because without God there is no reason something is right or wrong.
#127 - epicscorpion (04/16/2014) [-]
Absolute morality states that one rule holds true for any circumstances, and that just isn't true. If killing is bad, is it bad to kill in defense, is what I mean. If absolute morality can bend the rules like this in your opinion then I concede this.

Obviously if fear of God kept people from sinning then we would have no sinners, as the majority of people in the world are of Abrahamic religions, yet where are we today. I speak not of principle, but of actuality.

Morality is not a religious concept. Children have no problem doing what they want to get what they want, unless they are taught otherwise. Bats teach consequences with reward and punishment, chimpanzees understand morality fairly well enough. It depends on what you define morality as, but saying only religious people know what true morality is is just plain ignorant.

Atheists don't need a fear of consequences, just as you don't. Both have consequences for actions, one is only in the next as well as in this one.
User avatar #160 - Vandeekree (04/16/2014) [-]
Yes, and killing someone IS wrong, always. Some claim it's ok in self defense but it's not. Look at the turn the other cheeks verse. If someone wants your cloak give them your shirt too. You should have no reason for another person to give you a reason to defend yourself. In that same way, you should love everyone. Not love some more than others, love everyone equally. So if someone attacks someone else, you should love both of them enough to do all you can to save the one who is begin attacked but also try not to hurt and NEVER kill the one who is attacking. You can use words and actions but to kill the attacker is selfish on your part. There is no bending in absolute morality.

And yes, fear of God does prevent sin, but not everyone has fear of God. And not everyone who is religious has enough fear of God, myself included, I sin. It's a choice, but when people choose to follow it, it works.

I never said only religious people know. I said that all morality that exists comes from religion. Even that which people who aren't religious have. They mimic the morality of religions.

And yes, you and I do need fear of consequences in order to avoid doing something we want to do. If I offered you something you wanted and convinced you that there would be no consequences here or in the next life, you would take it. Fear of punishment is the only thing that stops people from doing wrong.

But for atheists, they don't see it as a guarantee. If you rob a bank you MIGHT get caught, or you might get rich. Either way, it's only wrong if you get caught. But for a Christian, God sees you no matter what.

#44 - I was going to insult his intelligence, but that's just what h… 04/14/2014 on I feel you bro 0
#164 - I think you should carefully decide what you think is right an… 04/12/2014 on An actual unpopular opinion +1
#3 - Hm...a possible correlation to religion here? One tr…  [+] (6 new replies) 03/28/2014 on moth trouble +3
User avatar #16 - frutus (03/28/2014) [-]
So you're saying that the moon is the correct religion? You fucking heathen. Ever heard of a little thing called THE SUN?
GOD you people are obnoxious, thinking that a piece of rock can do shit.
User avatar #17 - TheHutchie (03/28/2014) [-]
Actually it's a well-accepted theory that without the moon and its tidal effects on planet Earth, many aspects of nature would simply collapse, arguably leading to the potential ruin of life on Earth.

I hope this fits into your definition of "shit a piece of rock can do".
User avatar #18 - frutus (03/28/2014) [-]
sorry
User avatar #19 - TheHutchie (03/28/2014) [-]
Damn right motherfucker, you don't want to piss off the moon.
#20 - pineapplepeople (03/28/2014) [-]
The moon is not my sun, but I will (p)raise it!
#4 - Womens Study Major (03/28/2014) [-]
ah so i DO still see you post! FGT
#26 - Fail as a parent? No no, it was simply God's will, I did nothi… 03/27/2014 on HoMoPhObE 0
#9 - Brilliant. Convince enough people to follow their dreams and t… 03/25/2014 on What if money were no object? +135
#24 - No, I'm pretty sure that when a woman touches herself thinking… 03/25/2014 on SelfRape 0
#41 - Well that back story doesn't feel like a stretch. Is this conf…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/25/2014 on FEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEELS 0
User avatar #47 - Hydrocircuit (03/25/2014) [-]
It is stated in the series that he is japanese and actually doesnt know english.

His death is never gone into that much, but it seems he's suppsoed to be a play on the japanese branch of the "Rockabilly" subculture
User avatar #42 - sneperker (03/25/2014) [-]
fanfic
#35 - "It's so ******* frightening. Sleep paralysi… 03/18/2014 on Dreams +9
#2 - Wow. Way to cut off the top of your neck to fit your whole nec… 03/17/2014 on BE ADVISED +3
#1 - Ew. 03/11/2014 on Some day, hell yes -1
#10 - If they don't start making these I'm really going to enjoy the flavor. 03/08/2014 on The flavor we've all been... +8
#246 - Yes, I am well aware of the Sabbath and how it changed from Sa…  [+] (1 new reply) 03/05/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #247 - thebritishguy (03/05/2014) [-]
Yeah you're probably right, a lot of stuff is tradition.

If by "taught that the bible isn't evidence for the bible" you mean taught critical thinking skills and the understanding of circular logic and fallacies then yes I'm self taught in that area, I've listened to some lectures about the subject at least. Alexander the Great is a funny one actually because there's a prophecy that Nebuchadnezzar would destroy Tyre and it will never be rebuilt again but Nebby failed and retreated, so hundreds of years later Alexander the great finally invaded it successfully, however it bounced back and is still there you can see it using google maps, so using him to prove a prophecy is kind of dumb. The Zionists were offered several areas for the Jews to reside like states in Uganda, Australia, America, however these plans caused splits in the movement because many Jews thought they should stick to the original plan of taking Israel which was written in their holy book. So if a group of people just spend their whole lives trying to follow a prophecy and then they do the prophecy, it is self fulfilled, it's like me saying "I will eat a cake until the sun goes down" and then start baking a cake for me to eat, that's not prophecy.

However even if the prophecies were true it wouldn't prove God, it would prove that some people have the ability to predict the future.
If you want to take another step and say
"The cause of their power was God"
Then you must prove that.

I don't think it's consistent at all, just simple questions like how did Judas die we have inconsistencies. The stories were put in the bible if they were consistent, inconsistent ones were thrown out, that's why it's consistent. I have read the bible and I know the contexts, my information on this is from biblical scholars. Bart Ehrman - Bible Fail: Unreliable, Incoherent & Self Contradictory

Still a human sacrifice. Biblical scholars dissagree with you and each other like Bert Ehrman. I think it's just personal interpretation.
#244 - I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necess… 03/05/2014 on Truth hurts 0
#240 - Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone…  [+] (2 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
#237 - That being the black's enslavement is speculation by someone w…  [+] (4 new replies) 03/03/2014 on Truth hurts 0
User avatar #239 - thebritishguy (03/03/2014) [-]
It's not someone it was the official position of many church's in early America. The main point of Christianity I find as immoral as it is insane. It's like Gods trying to say
"You're ancient ancestors who you never mate ate a magic apple so you now you have to suffer explosive diarrhea because of your ancestors mistake. But don't worry, I'm going to go on a suicide mission because I made a law for humans that for me to forgive them I must see the blood of something innocent, why are you looking at me like that? When I see innocent blood I can only forgive people despite my omnipotence. Anyway in order to forgive you I'm going to make a sacrifice to myself even though I didn't make the mistake and I don't follow several important rules about sacrifice which I made. So I'm going to sacrifice myself to myself so I can forgive you for masturbating without you killing things."

Several of the moral principles of the story I disagree with. People shouldn't be punished for the crimes of their parents as we are responsible for our own mistakes not our children. I don't agree with sacrifice, the word "scape goating" actually comes from this concept, tribes would cast their problems onto the goat and kill it. I don't agree with human sacrifice and I don't want to benefit from a human sacrifice which I never asked for and would try to stop.
User avatar #240 - Vandeekree (03/03/2014) [-]
Yes, that earlier sect of Christianity counts as "someone." Not me, and not every Christian.

And that story is simply to show how sin came into the world and that it will be punished. How serious are you to take it? I'm not sure. But I can tell you the main point of it is the lesson it teaches. That lesson being that sin is a choice.

And by innocent blood are you talking about Jesus? Jesus came down and died as a way to teach us of God's will. God has to let us know about the rules somehow, what better way than to send a man who was perfect and does miracles to prove he is who he says?

On a side note, I don't think masturbation is wrong, it's not mentioned in the bible after all.

Lastly, everything you are saying is old testament. Rules made for a primitive people in a setting where they make sense and are practical. But with Jesus all of that changed. The old testament is no longer the law, it is the old law, only there to explain where Jesus's new law came from. Also, there is no human sacrifice in Christianity.
User avatar #242 - thebritishguy (03/04/2014) [-]
A sect of Christianity does not mean someone, someONE is one person.

I don't think that's true because once again the majority of people aren't aware of Christian culture so for instance if working on Sundays is a sin then the majority of people don't know that doing it is wrong so you can't hold people responsible for something when they didn't know it was wrong.

A better way of God letting us know about him than sending his son to be tortured 2000 years ago to a specific culture who spoke one language and then recorded many years later, in a different language to the one he or his disciples spoke, by anonymous authors, at a time when 90% of the population were illiterate, where there were actually many gospels and stories about Jesus which didn't go into the bible where Jesus tamed dragons and killed children and it was up to a group of old men to decide which stories to put into the bible, where the bible then had many forgeries, where when the bible was first printed in England there were 30,000 discrepancies which were thought to be significant. I don't take your question seriously.

Christianity's entire foundation is the human sacrifice of Jesus. You have to accept the human sacrifice of Jesus to get into heaven, I don't want to accept a human sacrifice. The very idea of Adam and Eve which lead to Jesus death follows the idea that sons should be punished for their parents mistakes.
User avatar #244 - Vandeekree (03/05/2014) [-]
I meant someone as in "someone might" but not necessarily all.

Back to the main point. Working on Sunday is part of the old Jewish law. Not Christianity. It is a law made specifically for God's chosen people.

Indeed, the bible has been through a lot, and yet it has come out almost exactly the same as the original texts. Were the other authors at the time writing other things? Yes. But you see, the bible is divinely inspired and what is in it is thanks to God guiding those authors to write the originals. If you look at the bible, the original bible, not the translation to English or German or any of that, you will find it's incredibly consistent, more so than any other historical record that has withstood the same length of time.

Secondly, sons are not punished for the sins of their fathers. Check Ezekiel 18:20 for proof of that.
But I can see why you would think that, the bible talks about it in places but you have to keep it in context and figure out what is actually being said. Such as Exodus 20:5(I'd quote but I have limited space) where God says not that he will punish son's for what their father's do but that what their father's do will cause their sons to do the same thing and thus get punished for it.
As for human sacrifice, Jesus wasn't a human sacrifice, he was a human who gave up his own life. He know what would happen to him.
As far as Adam goes, he brought sin into the world with the first one, but he didn't cause us to sin or get punished for what he did. His was simply the first. And Jesus, being God on Earth, gave his life on Earth to allow us to no longer need to sacrifice animals to make up for sin.
Show:
Sort by:
Order:

items

Total unique items point value: 550 / Total items point value: 1000

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #19 - kiratheunholy ONLINE (05/09/2013) [-]
Do you not have morals? Like seriously do you not have any? You claim that you only do as the bible instructs every time someone asks you about morals, but do you not know right from wrong without religion?

If so perhaps you should learn it. I'm an agnostic and I still know what's right from wrong without a higher entity instructing me on it. If the only thing keeping you from being a moral-less prick is religion then you are probably a psychopath.
User avatar #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Lets just put this here, shall we? Fewer purple lines
User avatar #18 to #16 - justinsane (04/04/2013) [-]
Now I strongly disagree that more studies need to be done in order to come to a consensus. All of the leading bodies which have done research on the subject have found no reason to indicate that gays are naturally more likely through their expression of sexuality to have any types of adverse effects. The only people I have heard calling for more research are the same people claiming that climate change is not a thing or that natural selection doesnt happen. There is a consensus in the scientific community and it is people who are not a part of the community who claim that they cant make conclusions (because they dont like the ones made)
User avatar #17 to #16 - Vandeekree (04/04/2013) [-]
Tis a good idea
#14 - highclassbean (02/11/2013) [-]
thank you for being so informative and calm in that religious conversation with thebritish.guy. really gave a positive look on the religious community.
User avatar #15 to #14 - Vandeekree (02/11/2013) [-]
Why thank you. Simply following the bible though. It says to approach the nonbeliever with respect and politeness.
#10 - Womens Study Major (09/07/2012) [-]
******* idiot.
#9 - Vandeekree (09/01/2012) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image posted in comment #40 at Christian dating **
#5 - Vandeekree (09/14/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolled a random image**
User avatar #4 - Vandeekree (07/27/2011) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 1**
User avatar #3 - Vandeekree (08/08/2010) [-]
**Vandeekree rolls 4**
#1 - bearycool **User deleted account** (07/14/2010) [-]
*pats head* don't worry my son I read your comment 80
User avatar #2 to #1 - Vandeekree (07/14/2010) [-]
Thank you, now I feel loved. i guess that's what I get for posting in the morning when the average funnyjunker is asleep.
 Friends (0)